Deterioration prediction device, control method of deterioration prediction device, and program

Abstract

To simply perform deterioration prediction of a target device.SOLUTION: A deterioration prediction device (3) comprises: an obtaining unit (311) which obtains an equipment list (D21); a correspondence unit (312) which makes question data (D31) correspond with a device included in the equipment list; a reading unit (313) which reads the question data corresponding to a target device; a calculation unit (314) which calculates an evaluation point of the target device based on a determination point associated with a selected evaluation section; and a prediction unit (315) which performs deterioration prediction of the target device based on the evaluation point of the target device.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] One aspect of the present invention relates to a deterioration prediction device. [Background technology]

[0002] Patent Document 1 discloses a system that formulates a management and renewal plan for a facility that is composed of a combination of multiple assets that are each made up of multiple parts. In this system, the results of facility inspections by inspectors are converted (quantified) into a health level that indicates the degree of deterioration of the parts, and the health level is predicted for each part and for each scenario according to a health level deterioration function. As an example, the health level is predicted by subtracting a predetermined value from the health level of the previous year. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Patent No. 4642085 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] In the system of Patent Document 1, for example, for the part "impeller", the item health is calculated according to the input wear measurement value in accordance with a health calculation function. Also, the item health of the elapsed time is calculated according to a predetermined formula. In this way, the system of Patent Document 1 performs a calculation process for the item health.

[0005] An object of one aspect of the present disclosure is to realize a deterioration prediction device that can easily predict deterioration of a target device. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] The deterioration prediction device of aspect 1 of the present invention comprises an acquisition unit that acquires an equipment list indicating a list of equipment arranged in a facility; a matching unit that matches question data including a plurality of questions for evaluating whether the equipment functions safely, which is prepared in advance for each equipment including at least one equipment, to the equipment included in the equipment list; a reading unit that reads out question data corresponding to the target equipment by accepting a selection operation of a target equipment for which an evaluation point, which is an evaluation index for the safety of the equipment, is calculated; a calculation unit that calculates an evaluation point of the target equipment based on a judgment point corresponding to the selected evaluation category by accepting a selection operation of one of a plurality of evaluation categories set in stages for each of the plurality of questions for the target equipment; and a prediction unit that performs deterioration prediction of the target equipment based on the evaluation point of the target equipment.

[0007] According to the above configuration, the deterioration prediction device acquires the equipment list and associates question data with each equipment. Therefore, even if the equipment with which the question is associated differs from the equipment included in the equipment list, the deterioration prediction device can accept a selection operation of an evaluation category corresponding to the equipment.

[0008] Furthermore, the deterioration prediction device calculates an evaluation score based on the judgment score corresponding to the one selected evaluation category. Therefore, the deterioration prediction device can perform deterioration prediction of the target device by simple processing.

[0009] Therefore, the deterioration prediction device can perform deterioration prediction of the target equipment with a reduced processing load by simply accepting an operation for selecting the evaluation category.

[0010] A deterioration prediction device according to a second aspect of the present invention is the deterioration prediction device of the first aspect, wherein the plurality of questions are classified into a plurality of evaluation items, and the calculation unit calculates an evaluation score for the target equipment for each of the evaluation items.

[0011] According to the above configuration, the deterioration prediction device calculates an evaluation point for each evaluation item into which multiple questions are classified, thereby making it possible to perform both deterioration prediction for each evaluation item and deterioration prediction taking into account all evaluation items.

[0012] A deterioration prediction device according to a third aspect of the present invention is the deterioration prediction device of the second aspect, wherein the prediction unit performs deterioration prediction of the target equipment based on the evaluation score of the target equipment calculated for each evaluation item.

[0013] According to the above configuration, the user can grasp the deterioration prediction of the equipment for each evaluation item. Therefore, when the user determines that the result of the deterioration prediction of a certain evaluation item indicates that the target equipment needs to be updated (replaced), the user can update the target equipment regardless of the results of the deterioration prediction of the other evaluation items.

[0014] A deterioration prediction device according to a fourth aspect of the present invention is the deterioration prediction device of the second or third aspect, wherein the prediction unit makes a deterioration prediction of the target equipment based on the sum of the evaluation points of the target equipment calculated for each evaluation item.

[0015] According to the above configuration, the user can grasp the progress of deterioration of the target product taking into account the selection of the evaluation category for all questions.

[0016] A deterioration prediction device according to aspect 5 of the present invention is a deterioration prediction device of any of aspects 1 to 4, wherein the calculation unit calculates an evaluation point of the target equipment multiple times, and the prediction unit predicts deterioration of the target equipment by setting an approximation curve for the multiple evaluation points of the target equipment calculated by the calculation unit.

[0017] According to the above configuration, the deterioration prediction device can perform more accurate deterioration prediction.

[0018] A control method for a deterioration prediction device according to aspect 6 of the present invention includes an acquisition step of acquiring an equipment list showing a list of equipment arranged in a facility; a matching step of matching question data including a plurality of questions for evaluating whether the equipment functions safely, which is prepared in advance for each equipment including at least one equipment, to the equipment included in the equipment list; a reading step of reading out question data corresponding to the target equipment by accepting a selection operation of a target equipment for which an evaluation point, which is an evaluation index for the safety of the equipment, is calculated; a calculation step of calculating an evaluation point of the target equipment based on a judgment point corresponding to the selected evaluation category by accepting a selection operation of one of a plurality of evaluation categories set in stages for each of the plurality of questions for the target equipment; and a prediction step of performing deterioration prediction of the target equipment based on the evaluation point of the target equipment.

[0019] According to the control method of the deterioration prediction device, an equipment list is acquired, and question data is associated with each equipment. Therefore, in the control method, even if the equipment with which the question is associated differs from the equipment included in the equipment list, it is possible to accept a selection operation of an evaluation category corresponding to the equipment.

[0020] Furthermore, in the above control method, an evaluation score is calculated based on a judgment score corresponding to the one selected evaluation category. Therefore, in the above control method, deterioration of the target device can be predicted by simple processing.

[0021] Therefore, in the above control method, deterioration of the target device can be predicted with a reduced processing load, simply by accepting an operation for selecting the evaluation category.

[0022] The deterioration prediction device according to each aspect of the present invention may be realized by a computer. In this case, the deterioration prediction device program that causes a computer to operate as each part (software element) of the deterioration prediction device to realize the deterioration prediction device on a computer, and a computer-readable recording medium on which the program is recorded, also fall within the scope of the present invention. Effect of the Invention

[0023] According to an embodiment of the deterioration prediction device and a control method thereof, deterioration prediction of a target device can be performed with a reduced processing load by simply accepting an evaluation category selection operation. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0024] [Figure 1] 1 is a functional block diagram showing a schematic configuration of a deterioration prediction system according to an embodiment of the present invention; [Diagram 2] 13 is a table showing an example of names of facilities used in the question data. [Diagram 3] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of master data displayed by a display device. [Figure 4] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a device data list screen displayed on the display device. [Diagram 5] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a medical record input screen displayed on the display device. [Figure 6] 11 is a table showing an example of question data. [Figure 7] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing the relationship between evaluation categories and judgment points. [Figure 8] 11 is a table and graph showing an example of a plurality of evaluation points calculated by a calculation unit for each evaluation item for a target device, and a result of deterioration prediction based on the plurality of evaluation points. [Figure 9] 11 is a graph showing an example of a plurality of evaluation points calculated for each evaluation item by a calculation unit for a target device, and a result of deterioration prediction based on the plurality of evaluation points. [Figure 10] 10 is a flowchart showing an example of a flow of processing by a control unit. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0025] [Deterioration prediction system] 1 is a functional block diagram showing a schematic configuration of a deterioration prediction system 1. The deterioration prediction system 1 is a system that evaluates the function of equipment installed in a facility. Specifically, the deterioration prediction system 1 is a system that predicts deterioration of the equipment installed in the facility.

[0026] The facility may be, for example, a water facility. The water facility may include, for example, a water intake facility, a water purification facility, and a water supply and distribution facility. The equipment may include, for example, a water supply pump, a power generation facility, an electric valve, a water intake flow meter, and a hypochlorous injection device. Other equipment may include, for example, a pump room, a sedimentation tank, a water supply reservoir, a management building, a pressure reducing valve room, a building, and other structures.

[0027] As shown in FIG. 1, a deterioration prediction system 1 includes, for example, a management device 2, a deterioration prediction device 3, an operation device 4, and a display device 5.

[0028] The management device 2 is a device that manages an equipment list D21 that shows a list of equipment installed in a facility. The equipment list D21 includes data such as the name of the equipment, the type of equipment, the manufacturing date, the installation date (installation time), and the name of the facility.

[0029] The type of equipment may include, for example, first type data indicating the function of the equipment and the type of structure. The functions of the equipment may include, for example, pumps, valves, flow meters, and chemical injection machines. The type of structure may include, for example, the type of business that constructed the structure (whether it is a building built by a civil engineering project or other buildings, etc.). The type of equipment may include, for example, second type data indicating the use of the facility in which the equipment is installed, such as a facility building or an office building. In Figures 3 and 4, the first type data is indicated as "equipment family" and the second type data is indicated as "equipment type".

[0030] The deterioration prediction device 3 is a device that evaluates the function of equipment installed in a facility. Specifically, the deterioration prediction device 3 is a device that predicts deterioration of equipment installed in a facility. The deterioration prediction device 3 will be described in detail later.

[0031] The operation device 4 is a device that accepts various input operations by a user. The deterioration prediction device 3 may perform various processes according to the various input operations accepted by the operation device 4. The display device 5 is a device that displays various information. The display device 5 may display output results based on various processes performed by the deterioration prediction device 3.

[0032] The operation device 4 and the display device 5 may be provided in the deterioration prediction device 3. The operation device 4 and the display device 5 may be realized as an integrated device such as a touch panel. The display device 5 may be any device capable of presenting the output result of the deterioration prediction device 3 to the user. For example, the deterioration prediction system 1 may be provided with a printing device that prints the output result of the deterioration prediction device 3 instead of the display device 5. In this case, the user can recognize the output result of the deterioration prediction device 3 by the printed matter printed by the printing device instead of the display screen.

[0033] [Deterioration prediction device] 1, the deterioration prediction device 3 includes, for example, a control unit 31 and a storage unit 32. The control unit 31 comprehensively controls each unit of the deterioration prediction device 3. The control unit 31 includes, for example, an acquisition unit 311, an association unit 312, a readout unit 313, a calculation unit 314, a prediction unit 315, and an output unit 316.

[0034] The acquisition unit 311 acquires the device list D21. In this embodiment, the acquisition unit 311 acquires the device list D21 from the management device 2, which is an external device of the deterioration prediction device 3.

[0035] The matching unit 312 matches question data D31, which includes a plurality of questions prepared in advance for each facility including at least one device, for evaluating whether the facility functions safely, with the devices included in the equipment list D21.

[0036] The name of an equipment included in the equipment list D21 managed by the management device 2 may differ from the name of an equipment associated with multiple questions included in the question data D31. That is, for the same equipment in the same facility, the name of the equipment given when the equipment list D21 is created may differ from the name of the equipment given when multiple questions are created.

[0037] This is because the creator of the equipment list D21 is different from the creator of the question data D31. For example, the equipment list D21 is created by a facility operator or a contractor commissioned by the operator. This operator or contractor may be a user who uses the deterioration prediction system 1. On the other hand, the question data D31 is created, for example, by a management organization (e.g., the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare) that manages multiple operators. Therefore, when predicting deterioration of equipment using the deterioration prediction device 3, it is necessary to associate questions with equipment included in the equipment list D21 by associating the names of equipment included in the equipment list D21 with the names of equipment used in the question data D31.

[0038] However, the question data D31 may include questions set by the business operator or the contractor as described above.

[0039] In this specification, the equipment used in the question data D31 is referred to as "equipment" in order to distinguish it from the "equipment" included in the equipment list D21 for convenience. Fig. 2 is a table showing an example of the name of the equipment used in the question data D31.

[0040] The "equipment" in the question data D31 may include at least one of the "equipment" included in the equipment list D21. That is, the equipment in the question data D31 may be the same equipment as the equipment included in the equipment list D21, or may be a collective term for multiple equipment included in the equipment list D21. Furthermore, the equipment in the question data D31 may be equipment composed of multiple equipment included in the equipment list D21. Furthermore, the equipment included in the equipment list D21 may refer not only to equipment arranged in a facility, but also to parts constituting the equipment arranged in the facility (parts arranged in the facility), or may refer to equipment composed of multiple equipment arranged in the facility (equipment arranged in the facility).

[0041] The association unit 312 creates master data D32 that associates the devices included in the device list D21 with the facilities used in the question data D31. The master data D32 created by the association unit 312 is stored in the storage unit 32. Fig. 3 is a diagram showing an example of the master data D32 displayed by the display device 5 (an example of a screen (image) displaying the master data D32).

[0042] In this embodiment, the association unit 312 reflects the first type data and the second type data included in the equipment list D21 as an equipment family, an equipment family name, an equipment type, and an equipment type name, as shown in Fig. 3. When a selection operation for selecting one of the multiple numbers shown in "equipment classification" is accepted via the operation device 4, the association unit 312 associates the names of the facility and equipment associated with the number (the information shown in Fig. 2) with the equipment family and equipment type, as shown in Fig. 3. In this way, the association unit 312 associates the names of the facility and equipment with all the equipment families and equipment types included in the equipment list D21, thereby associating the equipment with the equipment.

[0043] The association unit 312 can associate the equipment with the questions corresponding to the equipment by creating master data D32 that associates the equipment with the facilities. The association unit 312 creates a chart sheet D33 for each equipment based on this association. The chart sheet D33 is a sheet that can reflect the results of an investigation into the equipment included in the equipment list D21.

[0044] The medical record sheet D33 includes, for example, data in which various data related to the equipment included in the equipment list D21 is associated with questions corresponding to the equipment. For equipment for which an evaluation score has been calculated, the medical record sheet D33 reflects the answer results to the questions, the evaluation score based on the answer results, and the total of the evaluation scores (total score). The evaluation score is an example of an evaluation index for the safety of the equipment. In addition, the medical record sheet D33 may include information on the person who investigated the equipment (the person who answers the questions), the date of the investigation, and the number of years since the equipment was installed. The result of the correlation unit 312 calculating "(investigation date) - (installation date)" may be reflected in the medical record sheet D33 as the number of years that have passed.

[0045] Fig. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a device data list screen displayed by the display device 5. The device data list screen is a screen that displays a list of various data related to the device, and displays various information entered in the chart sheet D33 for each device. As shown in Fig. 4, based on the information entered in the chart sheet D33, the output unit 316 can display on the display device 5, as various data, for example, information acquired from the device list D21, the most recent survey date, the most recent evaluation score, and the number of evaluations for which the evaluation score was calculated.

[0046] The reading unit 313 reads out question data D31 corresponding to the target device by accepting a selection operation of the target device for which the evaluation points are to be calculated. In this embodiment, when an input operation is accepted on the medical record input button B11 in a state where one device is selected via the operation device 4 on the device data list screen in FIG. 4, the reading unit 313 reads out the medical record sheet D33 of the selected device from the storage unit 32. This selected device becomes the target device for which the evaluation points are to be calculated. By this reading, the output unit 316 can display a medical record input screen corresponding to the target device on the display device 5. The medical record input screen is a screen that can display multiple questions associated with the device. FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an example of a medical record input screen displayed by the display device 5.

[0047] FIG. 4 shows an example in which a selection operation is accepted for the name of the device "Ko-ku simple water reservoir". In FIG. 4, the selected state is indicated by shading. "Ko-ku simple water reservoir" refers to a Ko-ku reservoir in a simplified water supply system. In the following explanation, "Ko-ku simple water reservoir" is referred to as "Ko-ku reservoir". In FIG. 4, when an input operation is accepted for the chart input button B11 with "Ko-ku reservoir" selected, the display device 5 displays a chart input screen for "Ko-ku reservoir" as shown in FIG. 5. In the example of FIG. 5, the target device for which the evaluation points are calculated is "Ko-ku reservoir".

[0048] The calculation unit 314 accepts a selection operation of one of a plurality of evaluation categories set in stages for each of a plurality of questions about the target device, and calculates an evaluation score for the target device based on the judgment score associated with the selected evaluation category.

[0049] Fig. 6 is a table showing an example of the question data D31. Fig. 6 shows a part of the question data D31 prepared for pump equipment. As shown in Fig. 6, in the question data D31 for each equipment, a plurality of questions are associated with a plurality of evaluation categories. In this embodiment, each of the plurality of questions is associated with one of a plurality of evaluation items (classifications).

[0050] The evaluation items are items for evaluating whether the facility functions safely, and at least one question related to each item is set. That is, a plurality of questions are classified into a plurality of evaluation items. In this embodiment, five evaluation items are set: "water quality," "water volume / water pressure," "aging," "earthquake / crisis management," and "maintenance management." However, the types of evaluation items are not limited to these.

[0051] The evaluation category indicates a plurality of evaluation contents prepared in advance for a question. In this embodiment, five evaluation contents are set in stages for each question as the evaluation category. One of them, "not applicable," means that it is not included in the calculation of the evaluation points. For example, the following four evaluations may be set in stages in order of the highest evaluation. · No particular problems were identified in managing the operation of the equipment. No problems that would interfere with driving. -Minor impairment may occur, possibly resulting in reduced functionality. - There is a problem that is causing a decrease in functionality and may result in the functionality ceasing. Furthermore, the "special items" shown in FIG. 6 may reflect the questions and evaluation categories set by the business operator or contractor to evaluate the functions of the equipment.

[0052] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the relationship between the evaluation category and the judgment score. The judgment score is a score set for the evaluation category to calculate the evaluation score. In the example of FIG. 7, except for the evaluation category of "not applicable", the evaluation categories are set with higher judgment scores in the order of higher evaluation. Therefore, the question data D31 also includes judgment scores associated with each evaluation category. In this example, four evaluation categories are set for one question except for "not applicable", and judgment scores of "3", "2", "1" and "0" are set for the evaluation categories with higher evaluations.

[0053] As shown in Fig. 5, one question and an evaluation category corresponding to the question are displayed on the medical record input screen. When an operation to select one evaluation category is received on the medical record input screen via the operation device 4, the calculation unit 314 stores a judgment score corresponding to the evaluation category. In the example of Fig. 5, the evaluation category with the highest evaluation (the evaluation category shaded) is selected, so a judgment score of "3" is displayed.

[0054] 5, the chart input screen is provided with a forward / back button B21. Every time an input operation to the forward / back button B21 is received via the operation device 4, the output unit 316 can cause the display device 5 to display a plurality of questions corresponding to the target devices one by one.

[0055] In this embodiment, the calculation unit 314 calculates an evaluation score of the target equipment for each evaluation item. In this embodiment, the calculation unit 314 calculates an evaluation score of the target equipment for each evaluation item of "water quality," "water volume / water pressure," "aging," "earthquake / crisis management," and "maintenance." The calculation unit 314 calculates an evaluation score of the target equipment each time a survey is conducted on the target equipment (as a result of receiving an evaluation category selection operation for each question corresponding to the target equipment). The evaluation scores calculated by the calculation unit 314 are stored in the memory unit 32 for each equipment.

[0056] The calculation unit 314 uses, for example, the following evaluation formula: Evaluation score = 100-(3-lowest evaluation score) x 25-(M-1) x 5 The evaluation score is calculated according to the above formula. The minimum evaluation score is one of the evaluation scores "0", "1", and "2". M is the number of minimum evaluation scores for each evaluation item. However, in this example, the maximum value of M is set to 5. For example, when the maximum number of questions for each evaluation item is 6, if the number of minimum evaluation scores is 5 or 6, the calculation unit 314 inputs 5 into M. If the number of minimum evaluation scores "0" is 5 or 6, the calculation unit 314 calculates the evaluation score to be 5 points based on the above evaluation formula.

[0057] The calculation unit 314 does not consider questions with a judgment score of "N" as a calculation target for the evaluation score. Furthermore, in the case where the judgment scores for all questions in each evaluation item are 3 points, the calculation unit 314 calculates the evaluation score without any deductions, that is, as 100 points in the above evaluation formula. If the minimum judgment score includes any of "0", "1", and "2", any of 5 points, 10 points, 15 points, ..., 70 points, and 75 points is calculated as the evaluation score.

[0058] A qualitative evaluation may be associated with the evaluation score. For example, an evaluation score of 100 points may be associated with an "excellent" evaluation, an evaluation score of 75 to 55 points may be associated with a "good" evaluation, and an evaluation score of 50 points or less may be associated with a "poor" evaluation.

[0059] 5, the output unit 316 can display the evaluation score of the target device on the medical record input screen by outputting the evaluation score of the target device calculated by the calculation unit 314 to the display device 5. The output unit 316 may also cause the display device 5 to display a qualitative evaluation together with the evaluation score of the target device. In this embodiment, the evaluation score of the target device is calculated for each evaluation item. Therefore, the qualitative evaluation may also be displayed for each evaluation item.

[0060] The prediction unit 315 performs deterioration prediction of the target equipment based on the evaluation score of the target equipment calculated by the calculation unit 314. That is, the prediction unit 315 predicts the deterioration trend of the equipment (the trend of change in the evaluation score) based on the evaluation score of the target equipment calculated before the deterioration prediction (past evaluation score). In this embodiment, the prediction unit 315 performs deterioration prediction of the target equipment by setting an approximation curve for the evaluation score of the target equipment calculated by the calculation unit 314 multiple times. The prediction unit 315 can perform more accurate deterioration prediction by performing deterioration prediction of the target equipment using multiple evaluation points.

[0061] The prediction unit 315 performs a regression analysis to set an approximation curve for the multiple evaluation points calculated by the calculation unit 314. Examples of the approximation curve include a linear approximation curve and an exponential approximation curve. When the prediction unit 315 receives, via the operation device 4, an operation to select a target device for which degradation prediction is to be performed and an operation to input a future time (e.g., date) for which degradation prediction is to be performed, the prediction unit 315 reads out from the storage unit 32 evaluation points calculated multiple times for the selected target device. Then, the prediction unit 315 predicts how much the evaluation point will decrease by a future time based on the multiple evaluation points that have been read out.

[0062] The prediction unit 315 performs fitting for the read-out evaluation points using a preset approximation curve. However, the prediction unit 315 may change the approximation curve to be fitted depending on the fitting result, for example. For example, the prediction unit 315 performs fitting using a preset linear approximation curve, and may determine a coefficient of determination (R 2 ) is smaller than a predetermined value, fitting may be performed using an exponential approximation curve. The predetermined value may be determined by an experiment or the like.

[0063] The prediction unit 315 may perform deterioration prediction of the target equipment using all the stored evaluation points, or may perform deterioration prediction of the target equipment using only some of the evaluation points. When performing deterioration prediction using only some of the evaluation points, the prediction unit 315 may perform deterioration prediction of the target equipment using evaluation points calculated in a predetermined number of surveys (e.g., 10 times) counting from the most recent survey. In addition, when multiple survey results (evaluation points) are obtained in each fiscal year (predetermined period), the prediction unit 315 may perform deterioration prediction of the target equipment using evaluation points for a predetermined number of surveys (e.g., 1 time) from each fiscal year. When reading out multiple evaluation points from a certain fiscal year, the prediction unit 315 may read out multiple evaluation points counting from the most recent survey.

[0064] In this embodiment, the prediction unit 315 predicts deterioration of the target equipment based on the evaluation score of the target equipment calculated for each evaluation item. The prediction unit 315 predicts deterioration of the target equipment for each evaluation item by reading all or part of the evaluation scores calculated multiple times for each evaluation item of the target equipment. In this embodiment, the prediction unit 315 predicts deterioration of the target equipment for each of the evaluation items of "water quality," "water volume / water pressure," "aging deterioration," "earthquake / crisis management," and "maintenance management."

[0065] Further, the prediction unit 315 performs deterioration prediction of the target equipment based on the total of the evaluation points of the target equipment calculated for each evaluation item. The prediction unit 315 reads out all or part of the evaluation points calculated multiple times for each evaluation item for the target equipment. Then, the prediction unit 315 calculates the total of the evaluation points for each survey. For example, consider a case where the prediction unit 315 reads out the evaluation points for one survey from each year for the most recent 10 years. In this case, the prediction unit 315 calculates the total of the evaluation points for each year by adding up the evaluation points for "water quality", the evaluation points for "water volume and water pressure", the evaluation points for "aging deterioration", the evaluation points for "earthquake and crisis management", and the evaluation points for "maintenance management". The deterioration prediction of the target equipment is performed using the total of the evaluation points calculated for each year (the total of 10 evaluation points in this example).

[0066] 8 and 9 are diagrams showing an example of a plurality of evaluation points calculated for each evaluation item by the calculation unit 314 for the target device, and a result of deterioration prediction based on the plurality of evaluation points.

[0067] Reference numeral 1001 in Fig. 8 is a table showing an example of a plurality of evaluation points calculated for each evaluation item by the calculation unit 314 and a result of deterioration prediction based on the plurality of evaluation points. Reference numeral 1002 in Fig. 8 is a graph showing an example of a total of evaluation points corresponding to each year and a result of deterioration prediction based on the total of evaluation points.

[0068] Reference numeral 1011 in Fig. 9 is a graph showing an example of a plurality of evaluation points corresponding to the evaluation item "water quality" and the result of deterioration prediction based on the plurality of evaluation points. Reference numeral 1012 in Fig. 9 is a graph showing an example of a plurality of evaluation points corresponding to the evaluation item "water volume / water pressure" and the result of deterioration prediction based on the plurality of evaluation points. Reference numeral 1013 in Fig. 9 is a graph showing an example of a plurality of evaluation points corresponding to the evaluation item "aging deterioration" and the result of deterioration prediction based on the plurality of evaluation points.

[0069] In the graphs of FIG. 8 and FIG. 9, the horizontal axis indicates the evaluation year (elapsed time), and the vertical axis indicates the sum of the evaluation points (total score) or the evaluation points.

[0070] Figures 8 and 9 show an example of the evaluation score calculation results and deterioration prediction results when the target equipment is the "Takaku Water Reservoir." The year 2030 is specified as the future time for the deterioration prediction. In Figures 8 and 9, a deterioration prediction (prediction of evaluation points) is made for the target equipment from the survey date in 2023 to fiscal year 2030, based on the evaluation points obtained from one survey result in each fiscal year (six fiscal years) shown in Figure 8.

[0071] In Fig. 8, "total score" indicates the sum of the evaluation scores calculated or predicted for each of the five evaluation items for each year. A graph GR1 indicated by reference numeral 1002 in Fig. 8 is a graph of the results of a deterioration prediction of the target device based on the sum of the evaluation scores calculated by the calculation unit 314. Specifically, the graph GR1 indicates the results of fitting the "total score" for the first to sixth times in the table indicated by reference numeral 1001 in Fig. 8 using a linear approximation curve.

[0072] Graphs GR2 to GR4 indicated by reference numerals 1011 to 1013 in Fig. 9 are graphs of the results of degradation prediction of the target equipment based on the evaluation points calculated by the calculation unit 314 for each of "water quality", "water volume / pressure", and "aging deterioration". That is, each of the graphs GR2 to GR4 in Fig. 9 shows the results of fitting, using a linear approximation curve, the first to sixth evaluation points for each of "water quality", "water volume / pressure", and "aging deterioration" in the table indicated by reference numeral 1001 in Fig. 8.

[0073] In the table indicated by reference numeral 1001 in Fig. 8, the values ​​shown for the evaluation year "2030" are values ​​obtained as a result of fitting using a linear approximation curve as described above. Graphs for "earthquake and crisis management" and "maintenance management" are omitted.

[0074] As shown in Figures 8 and 9, the deterioration trends of the equipment shown in graphs GR1 to GR4 are different from each other. In other words, the deterioration trend of the equipment shown in graph GR1 showing the result of deterioration prediction using the total score is different from the deterioration trend of the equipment shown in graphs GR2 to GR4 showing the result of deterioration prediction using the evaluation score of each evaluation item. In addition, the deterioration trends of the equipment shown in graphs GR2 to GR4 showing the result of deterioration prediction for each evaluation item are also different from each other.

[0075] In this way, the deterioration tendency of the equipment obtained using the total score (the deterioration tendency of the equipment obtained using the answers to all questions) and the deterioration tendency of the equipment obtained for each evaluation item may differ from each other. Furthermore, the deterioration tendency of the equipment between the evaluation items may also differ from each other.

[0076] For example, consider a case where it is determined that the equipment needs to be updated or repaired when the total score or evaluation score falls below 50%, taking into consideration the possibility that the equipment may stop functioning. In the examples of Figures 8 and 9, the total score is more than 50% (265 points) at the time of the survey in 2023, while the evaluation items of "water quality," "water volume / pressure," "deterioration over time," and "maintenance" are less than 50% (45 points or 50 points). Therefore, in this example, it can be seen that the equipment does not need to be updated or repaired from the perspective of the total score at the time of the survey in 2023, but it does need to be updated or repaired from the perspective of the evaluation items.

[0077] In the examples of Figures 8 and 9, the results of whether to update or repair the equipment differed from the perspective of the total score and the perspective of the evaluation item at the time of the survey in 2023, but it is quite possible that the total score and the evaluation score of each evaluation item will be 50% or more at the time of the most recent survey. Even in that case, as shown in Figures 8 and 9, the deterioration trend of the equipment obtained using the total score and the deterioration trend of the equipment obtained for each evaluation item may differ from each other. Therefore, the time when the total score is predicted to be 50% or less and the time when the evaluation score of the evaluation item is predicted to be 50% or less may differ from each other. In addition, the time when the evaluation score is predicted to be 50% or less may differ from each other between each evaluation item.

[0078] The deterioration tendency of the equipment obtained using the total score is likely to show a more gradual tendency than the deterioration tendency of the equipment obtained for each evaluation item. Therefore, the evaluation score of any evaluation item is likely to fall below a predetermined point before the total score falls below a predetermined point. The predetermined point is a score that requires updating or repairing the equipment, and may be determined by experiments, etc.

[0079] Therefore, the prediction unit 315 predicts deterioration of the target device based on the evaluation points of the target device calculated for each evaluation item, and the user can grasp the result of the deterioration prediction of the device for each evaluation item. Therefore, when the result of the deterioration prediction of a certain evaluation item indicates that the target device needs to be updated or repaired, the user can plan to update or repair the target device regardless of the results of the deterioration prediction of the other evaluation items.

[0080] In addition, if the user determines that the deterioration prediction result for a certain evaluation item indicates that the target equipment requires updating or repair, the user can update or repair only the parts that relate to that evaluation item out of the multiple parts that make up the target equipment.

[0081] On the other hand, by the prediction unit 315 predicting the deterioration of the target device based on the total score, the user can grasp the progress of deterioration of the target product taking into consideration the selection of the evaluation category for all questions. In other words, the user can grasp the overall trend of deterioration of the target device.

[0082] In this way, the calculation unit 314 calculates the evaluation points for each evaluation item into which multiple questions are classified, and the prediction unit 315 is able to perform both deterioration prediction for each evaluation item and deterioration prediction taking into account all evaluation items.

[0083] The output unit 316 outputs various data to the display device 5. The output unit 316 transmits, for example, an equipment list D21 to the display device 5. This enables the display device 5 to display a screen for creating master data D32 as shown in Fig. 3. The output unit 316 transmits, for example, a medical record sheet D33 to the display device 5. This enables the display device 5 to display an equipment data list screen as shown in Fig. 4 and a medical record input screen as shown in Fig. 5.

[0084] Furthermore, the output unit 316 transmits, for example, the calculation result of the evaluation score of the target device by the calculation unit 314 and the deterioration prediction result of the target device by the prediction unit 315 to the display device 5. This enables the display device 5 to display the evaluation score and total score calculated by the calculation unit 314 or the evaluation score and total score predicted by the prediction unit 315 in a table format and a graph format as shown in Figs.

[0085] The storage unit 32 stores various data used by the control unit 31. As shown in Fig. 1, the storage unit 32 stores, for example, question data D31, master data D32, and a chart sheet D33. The storage unit 32 stores the question data D31 prepared for each device, and the chart sheet D33 created for each device. In addition, the storage unit 32 stores, for example, a device list D21 acquired from the management device 2. The storage unit 32 also stores, for each device, the evaluation score calculated by the calculation unit 314, and the evaluation score and total score predicted by the prediction unit 315.

[0086] The deterioration prediction device 3 does not need to include the storage unit 32. In this case, the deterioration prediction system 1 may include the storage unit 32 as a storage device that can be communicatively connected to the deterioration prediction device 3.

[0087] [Control method of deterioration prediction device] 10 is a flowchart showing an example of the flow of processing by the control unit 31. This flow of processing shows an example of a method of controlling the deterioration predicting device 3.

[0088] In the control unit 31, first, the acquisition unit 311 acquires the device list D21 from the management device 2 (S1; acquisition step). In addition, the association unit 312 reads out the question data D31 from the storage unit 32. The order of the processes of acquiring the device list D21 and reading out the question data D31 does not matter.

[0089] The association unit 312 creates master data D32 by associating the devices included in the device list D21 acquired by the acquisition unit 311 with the facilities associated with the question data D31 read from the storage unit 32. Through this association, the association unit 312 can associate the question data D31 with the devices included in the device list D21. Based on this association, the association unit 312 creates a chart sheet D33 for each device (S2; association step).

[0090] Thereafter, the output unit 316 displays the device data list screen shown in Fig. 4 on the display device 5 in response to the input operation. The control unit 31 determines whether or not an operation to read the medical chart sheet D33 of the target device has been accepted while the display device 5 is displaying the device data list screen (S3). The control unit 31 determines whether or not an input operation to the medical chart input button B11 (see Fig. 4) has been accepted while one device is selected.

[0091] The control unit 31 waits for the reception of the read operation while the device data list screen is displayed (NO in S3). When the control unit 31 determines that the read operation has been received (YES in S3), the reading unit 313 reads the chart sheet D33 of the selected device (target device) from the storage unit 32. This means that the reading unit 313 reads the question data D31 of the target device from the storage unit 32 by receiving the selection operation of the target device (S4: reading step). The output unit 316 causes the display device 5 to display a chart input screen (see FIG. 5) corresponding to the target device based on the chart sheet D33 read by the reading unit 313 (S5).

[0092] The control unit 31 determines whether, while the display device 5 is displaying the medical record input screen, i.e., while displaying a question, it has received a selection operation for one of the multiple evaluation categories associated with the question (S6).

[0093] The control unit 31 waits for the acceptance of the above selection operation while the medical record input screen is displayed (NO in S6). When the control unit 31 determines that a selection operation for evaluation category 1 has been accepted for the displayed question (YES in S6), it determines whether a selection operation for evaluation category 1 has been accepted for all questions associated with the target device (S7).

[0094] When the control unit 31 determines that the selection operation of the evaluation category has not been accepted for all questions associated with the target device (NO in S7), the control unit 31 performs the process of S6. In this way, the control unit 31 accepts the selection operation of the evaluation category for all questions associated with the target device.

[0095] When the control unit 31 determines that the selection operation of the evaluation category has been received for all questions associated with the target device (YES in S7), the calculation unit 314 calculates the evaluation score based on the judgment score associated with the selected evaluation category (S8; calculation step). In this embodiment, the calculation unit 314 calculates the evaluation score for each evaluation item using the above-mentioned evaluation formula.

[0096] Thereafter, the prediction unit 315 performs a deterioration prediction of the target device based on the evaluation score calculated by the calculation unit 314 (S9; prediction step).

[0097] In this embodiment, the calculation unit 314 stores the calculated evaluation points in the storage unit 32. When the prediction unit 315 receives an operation to select a target device for which deterioration prediction is to be performed and an operation to input a future time for which deterioration prediction is to be performed, the prediction unit 315 reads out the evaluation points calculated multiple times for the selected target device from the storage unit 32. The prediction unit 315 predicts the progress of the decline in the evaluation points up to the future time by performing fitting using a linear approximation curve to the evaluation points calculated multiple times. In this embodiment, the prediction unit 315 performs deterioration prediction of the target device for each evaluation item, and also performs deterioration prediction of the target device based on the total score.

[0098] The output unit 316 outputs the result of the deterioration prediction of the target device by the prediction unit 315 to the display device 5. As a result, the display device 5 displays the result of the deterioration prediction of the target device (S10). In this embodiment, the display device 5 displays the result of the deterioration prediction of the target device as shown in Figs. 8 and 9.

[0099] [Other configuration examples] The above-mentioned judgment points and evaluation formulas are merely examples. It is sufficient that judgment points and evaluation formulas are prepared according to the number of questions and / or the number of evaluation categories set so that the evaluation points can be calculated to reflect the evaluation according to the actual degree of deterioration of the target device.

[0100] Also, the evaluation points do not have to be calculated for each evaluation item. For example, the evaluation points may be calculated based on the judgment points for questions set in two or more evaluation items. That is, one evaluation point may be calculated for an evaluation item group including a plurality of evaluation items. This includes the calculation of evaluation points based on the judgment points for all questions set in the target device. In this case, as described above, it is sufficient that the judgment points and evaluation formulas are prepared according to the number of questions and / or the number of evaluation categories set.

[0101] Furthermore, when the display device 5 is caused to display a qualitative evaluation together with the evaluation score of the target device, the control unit 31 may not only display a qualitative evaluation for each evaluation item, but also a qualitative evaluation relative to the total score. That is, the control unit 31 may cause the display device 5 to display a qualitative evaluation for each evaluation item and / or a qualitative evaluation relative to the total score. When a qualitative evaluation relative to the total score is displayed, it is sufficient that the qualitative evaluation is set in association with the magnitude of the total score.

[0102] Moreover, the results of the deterioration prediction by the prediction unit 315 do not have to be presented in both table format and graph format, and may be presented only in table format or only in graph format. The results of the deterioration prediction may be presented so that the user can grasp the progress of deterioration of the target device.

[0103] Furthermore, if there is only one evaluation point for the target device, the prediction unit 315 cannot perform regression analysis. Therefore, in this case, the control unit 31 may notify, for example, via the display device 5, that deterioration prediction cannot be performed.

[0104] [Major effects of the deterioration prediction device and its control method] The control unit 31 acquires the equipment list D21 and associates question data D31 with each equipment included in the equipment list D21. Therefore, even if the equipment with which the question is associated is different from the equipment included in the equipment list D21, the control unit 31 can accept the selection operation of the evaluation category corresponding to the equipment. Therefore, the control unit 31 can predict deterioration of the target equipment based on the selection of the evaluation category.

[0105] As described above, the business operator or contractor who manages the facility may be different from the preparer who prepares general-purpose questions that can be used in multiple facilities. In this case, the name of the device used by the business operator or contractor to manage the facility may be different from the name of the device that the preparer associates with the question. In such a case, the source from which the device list D21 is obtained (the storage unit 32 in this embodiment) is different from the source from which the question data D31 is obtained (the management device 2 in this embodiment). Even in such a situation, the control unit 31 associates the question data D31 with each device included in the device list D21, thereby making it possible to accept the selection operation of the above evaluation category.

[0106] Furthermore, the control unit 31 calculates an evaluation score based on the judgment score corresponding to the one selected evaluation category. Therefore, the control unit 31 can predict deterioration of the target device through simple processing.

[0107] In this embodiment, since multiple questions are classified for each evaluation item, the control unit 31 can calculate an evaluation score for each evaluation item. Therefore, the control unit 31 can output the result of the deterioration prediction of the target equipment for each evaluation item, and can also output the result of the deterioration prediction of the target equipment taking into account all evaluation items (the deterioration prediction of the target equipment based on the total score). Therefore, since the result of the deterioration prediction of the target equipment can be presented to the user from various angles, the user can make a multifaceted decision on the timing of updating or repairing the target equipment.

[0108] [Software implementation example] The functions of the deterioration prediction device 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "device") can be realized by a program for causing a computer to function as the device, and a program for causing a computer to function as each control block of the device (particularly each part included in the control unit 31).

[0109] In this case, the device includes a computer having at least one control device (e.g., a processor) and at least one storage device (e.g., a memory) as hardware for executing the program. The control device and storage device execute the program to realize each function described in each of the above embodiments.

[0110] The program may be non-transitory and may be recorded in one or more computer-readable recording media. The recording media may or may not be included in the device. In the latter case, the program may be provided to the device via any wired or wireless transmission medium.

[0111] In addition, some or all of the functions of each of the control blocks can be realized by a logic circuit. For example, an integrated circuit in which a logic circuit that functions as each of the control blocks is formed is also included in the scope of the present invention. In addition, the functions of each of the control blocks can be realized by, for example, a quantum computer.

[0112] Furthermore, each process described in each of the above embodiments may be executed by AI (Artificial Intelligence). In this case, the AI ​​may be operated by the control device or may be operated by another device (for example, an edge computer or a cloud server).

[0113] [Additional Notes] The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, and various modifications are possible within the scope of the claims. Embodiments obtained by appropriately combining the technical means disclosed in different embodiments are also included in the technical scope of the present invention. [Explanation of symbols]

[0114] 3. Deterioration prediction device 311 Acquisition Department 312 Mapping section 313 Reading section 314 Calculation Unit 315 Prediction Department D21 Equipment List D31 Question Data

Claims

1. A deterioration prediction device, comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires a device list indicating a list of devices arranged in a facility; a correspondence unit that associates question data, which is prepared in advance for each facility including at least one device, and includes a plurality of questions for evaluating whether the facility functions safely, with the devices included in the device list; a reading unit that reads out question data corresponding to a target device by accepting a selection operation of the target device for which an evaluation score, which is an evaluation index of the safety of the device, is to be calculated; a calculation unit that receives a selection operation of one of a plurality of evaluation categories set in stages for each of the plurality of questions about the target device, and calculates an evaluation score of the target device based on a judgment score associated with the selected evaluation category; A deterioration prediction device comprising: a prediction unit that predicts deterioration of the target equipment based on an evaluation score of the target equipment.

2. The plurality of questions are classified into a plurality of evaluation items, The deterioration prediction device according to claim 1 , wherein the calculation unit calculates an evaluation score of the target equipment for each of the evaluation items.

3. The deterioration prediction device according to claim 2 , wherein the prediction unit predicts deterioration of the target equipment based on the evaluation score of the target equipment calculated for each of the evaluation items.

4. The deterioration prediction device according to claim 2 , wherein the prediction unit predicts deterioration of the target equipment based on a total of evaluation points of the target equipment calculated for each of the evaluation items.

5. The calculation unit calculates the evaluation score of the target device multiple times, The deterioration prediction device according to claim 1 , wherein the prediction unit predicts deterioration of the target equipment by setting an approximation curve for the evaluation points of the plurality of target equipment calculated by the calculation unit.

6. A method for controlling a deterioration prediction device, comprising: An acquisition step of acquiring a device list indicating a list of devices arranged in the facility; a matching step of matching question data, which is prepared in advance for each facility including at least one device, and includes a plurality of questions for evaluating whether the facility functions safely, with the devices included in the device list; a reading step of reading question data corresponding to a target device by accepting a selection operation of the target device for which an evaluation score, which is an evaluation index of the safety of the device, is to be calculated; a calculation step of calculating an evaluation score of the target device based on a judgment score corresponding to the selected evaluation category by accepting a selection operation of one of a plurality of evaluation categories set in a stepwise manner for each of the plurality of questions about the target device; A prediction step of predicting deterioration of the target equipment based on the evaluation score of the target equipment.

7. A program for causing a computer to function as each unit in the deterioration prediction device according to claim 1.

Images